Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Job sequencing and selection within workload co...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Job sequencing and selection within workload control order release: an assessment by simulation

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Job sequencing and selection within workload control order release : an assessment by simulation. / Thurer, Matthias; Stevenson, Mark; Qu, Ting.

In: International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54, No. 4, 02.2016, p. 1061-1075.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Thurer, Matthias ; Stevenson, Mark ; Qu, Ting. / Job sequencing and selection within workload control order release : an assessment by simulation. In: International Journal of Production Research. 2016 ; Vol. 54, No. 4. pp. 1061-1075.

Bibtex

@article{4c6fc8dd4dea46c697726b4b8930cd01,
title = "Job sequencing and selection within workload control order release: an assessment by simulation",
abstract = "Recent research has highlighted the potential impact of pool sequencing on order release performance but it suffered from two shortcomings. First, arguably the best release solution for workload control in practice combines periodic with continuous release. Although the two types of releases serve different functions, recent work assumed the same sequencing rule should be used for both. Here, the use of different sequencing rules for periodic and continuous releases is evaluated. Using a job-shop simulation, we demonstrate that the rule applied during continuous releases has only a negligible impact on performance. Therefore, jobs can be pulled intermediately from the pool by workers using a more straightforward sequencing rule than the one applied for periodic release. Second, it was assumed that all jobs in the pool are sequenced and then a subset is selected for release. But for some load-oriented sequencing rules, the priority value used for sequencing jobs should be updated after each job selection from the pool. Our simulation results show that although this may improve load balancing at release, it does not in fact improve overall shop performance. Therefore, the greedy heuristic of first sequencing and then selecting jobs can be maintained, which allows the release decision-making process to retain its simplicity. The work has important implications for the use of sequencing rules in practice.",
keywords = "order release, workload control, job shop, simulation",
author = "Matthias Thurer and Mark Stevenson and Ting Qu",
year = "2016",
month = feb
doi = "10.1080/00207543.2015.1047978",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "1061--1075",
journal = "International Journal of Production Research",
issn = "0020-7543",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Job sequencing and selection within workload control order release

T2 - an assessment by simulation

AU - Thurer, Matthias

AU - Stevenson, Mark

AU - Qu, Ting

PY - 2016/2

Y1 - 2016/2

N2 - Recent research has highlighted the potential impact of pool sequencing on order release performance but it suffered from two shortcomings. First, arguably the best release solution for workload control in practice combines periodic with continuous release. Although the two types of releases serve different functions, recent work assumed the same sequencing rule should be used for both. Here, the use of different sequencing rules for periodic and continuous releases is evaluated. Using a job-shop simulation, we demonstrate that the rule applied during continuous releases has only a negligible impact on performance. Therefore, jobs can be pulled intermediately from the pool by workers using a more straightforward sequencing rule than the one applied for periodic release. Second, it was assumed that all jobs in the pool are sequenced and then a subset is selected for release. But for some load-oriented sequencing rules, the priority value used for sequencing jobs should be updated after each job selection from the pool. Our simulation results show that although this may improve load balancing at release, it does not in fact improve overall shop performance. Therefore, the greedy heuristic of first sequencing and then selecting jobs can be maintained, which allows the release decision-making process to retain its simplicity. The work has important implications for the use of sequencing rules in practice.

AB - Recent research has highlighted the potential impact of pool sequencing on order release performance but it suffered from two shortcomings. First, arguably the best release solution for workload control in practice combines periodic with continuous release. Although the two types of releases serve different functions, recent work assumed the same sequencing rule should be used for both. Here, the use of different sequencing rules for periodic and continuous releases is evaluated. Using a job-shop simulation, we demonstrate that the rule applied during continuous releases has only a negligible impact on performance. Therefore, jobs can be pulled intermediately from the pool by workers using a more straightforward sequencing rule than the one applied for periodic release. Second, it was assumed that all jobs in the pool are sequenced and then a subset is selected for release. But for some load-oriented sequencing rules, the priority value used for sequencing jobs should be updated after each job selection from the pool. Our simulation results show that although this may improve load balancing at release, it does not in fact improve overall shop performance. Therefore, the greedy heuristic of first sequencing and then selecting jobs can be maintained, which allows the release decision-making process to retain its simplicity. The work has important implications for the use of sequencing rules in practice.

KW - order release

KW - workload control

KW - job shop

KW - simulation

U2 - 10.1080/00207543.2015.1047978

DO - 10.1080/00207543.2015.1047978

M3 - Journal article

VL - 54

SP - 1061

EP - 1075

JO - International Journal of Production Research

JF - International Journal of Production Research

SN - 0020-7543

IS - 4

ER -